maestro pistolero
New member
Pardon a temporary diversion from the topic.
Excellent post, but here I disagree:
This is perhaps even more true on our own soil, where the government would be extremely reluctant to turn WMD on it's own infrastructure, let alone it's own people, posse comitatus notwithstanding.
The 300 million guns in private hands in this country include more military-style semi-automatic rifles than are held by any two of the largest armies in the world. I consider that a quite sufficient deterrent to tyranny, so much so, that I think as long as we have a meaningful 2nd Amendment, we will never need to use it for that purpose. That's the irony, as long as we have 2A protection, we won't need it. Take it away, or weaken it enough, and the need for it becomes great.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Excellent post, but here I disagree:
All the military might in the world doesn't change the fact that conflicts inevitably end up being door-to-door, street-to-street affairs. If this wasn't true, we wouldn't still be struggling in Afghanistan and Iraq.If it's a tyranny we face, it will come from a powerful, organized entity with all the weapons and other means to protect itself. It seems to me that armed private citizens will have little chance of besting that entity.
This is perhaps even more true on our own soil, where the government would be extremely reluctant to turn WMD on it's own infrastructure, let alone it's own people, posse comitatus notwithstanding.
The 300 million guns in private hands in this country include more military-style semi-automatic rifles than are held by any two of the largest armies in the world. I consider that a quite sufficient deterrent to tyranny, so much so, that I think as long as we have a meaningful 2nd Amendment, we will never need to use it for that purpose. That's the irony, as long as we have 2A protection, we won't need it. Take it away, or weaken it enough, and the need for it becomes great.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming.